Old Age and Survivor's Insurance

Held, where no other formality or solemnization surrounded a
purported marriage, the mere act of acquiring a marriage license cannot
constitute a "marriage ceremony" within the meaning of section
216(h)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act even though the parties in good
faith believed that this act gave rise to a valid marriage
relationship.

R, the worker, and W, his alleged spouse, obtained a marriage license in
the State of Washington on July 5, 1960. Both parties had little knowledge
of the English language and almost no formal education. Although both had
been married and divorced while living in Mexico before coming to the
United States, they were unfamiliar with Washington marriage law and in
good faith believed that when they obtained the marriage license, a
marriage resulted without further ceremony or solemnization. After
acquiring the marriage license, R and W lived together at all times in the
State of Washington until R's death on January 21, 1968. However, a
marriage ceremony between R and W did not take place until January 2,
1968, when they learned that failure to solemnize a marriage prevented
creation of a marriage relationship in that State.

W's application for widow's insurance benefits was denied on the grounds
that she was not married to the deceased worker "for a period of not less
than nine months immediately prior to the day on which he died" as
required by section 216(c) of the Social Security Act. This action was
affirmed upon judicial review in Perez v. finch, 320 F.Supp. 787
(E.D. Wash., 1970).

The question now in issue is whether the obtaining of a marriage license,
where the parties in good faith believed that such act, by itself, was
sufficient for a valid marriage, constitutes a "marriage ceremony" within
the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act.

Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 260.04.140 (1970) states that before any
persons can be joined in marriage, they shall procure a license from a
county auditor authorizing any person or religious organization to join
together the persons as husband and wife. The State of Washington does not
recognize common-law marriage if contracted and consummated in Washington.
See In re Gallagher's Estate, 213 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1950).

In any case where under subparagraph (A) an applicant is not (and is not
deemed to be) the . . . widow . . . of a fully or currently insured
individual, or where under subsection . . . (c) . . . such applicant is
not the . . . widow . . . of such individual, but it is established to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that such applicant in good faith went
through a marriage ceremony with such individual resulting in a
purported marriage between them which, but for a legal impediment not
known to the applicant at the time of such ceremony, would have been a
valid marriage, and such applicant and the insured individual were living
in the same household at the time of the death of such insured individual
. . . then, for purposes of subparagraph (A) and subsection . . . (c) . .
. such purported marriage shall be deemed to be a valid marriage. . . .
For purposes of this subparagraph, a legal impediment to the validity of a
purported marriage includes only an impediment (i) resulting from the lack
of dissolution of a previous marriage or otherwise arising out of such
previous marriage or its dissolution, or (ii) resulting from a defect in
the procedure followed in connection with such purported marriage."
(Emphasis added.)

Section 216(h)(1)(B) may apply only in cases where there has been a
marriage ceremony which, but for a legal impediment unknown to the
applicant at the time of the ceremony, would have been a valid marriage.
The section defines a "legal impediment" as an impediment (i) resulting
from the lack of dissolution of a previous marriage or otherwise arising
out of such previous marriage or its dissolution, or (ii) resulting from a
defect in the procedure followed in connection with such purported
marriage. In discussing an impediment resulting from a defect in the
procedure followed in connection with a purported marriage, both the
Senate and House Reports cite, as an example of a defect in the procedure,
failure to comply in one or more respects with any provision of State law
relating to the performance of a marriage ceremony or to the kind of
ceremony required. See House Rep. No. 1799, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 91 (1960)
and Sen. Rep. No. 1856, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 78 (1960). Thus, the statute
quite clearly envisages and requires a marriage ceremony, and without some
form of solemnization, the act of acquiring a marriage license cannot be
considered a marriage ceremony.

The instant case differs from a situation in which some further action
may have been taken by the parties. For example, where there has been an
observance by the parties of what they believed to be the legal
formalities necessary for a ceremonial marriage, the Social Security
Administration would not be precluded from a conclusion that the good
faith securing of a marriage license in the presence of two witnesses
constituted a "marriage ceremony" with the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(B)
of the Act. The fact that such parties intend to have a marriage ceremony
and, pursuant to that intent, secure a marriage license in the presence of
two witnesses adds an element of formality to an otherwise preliminary and
wholly ministerial event. With witnesses present, there is something more
than the mere acquisition of a marriage license and the purported marriage
under such circumstances may be surrounded by sufficient formality to
constitute a "marriage ceremony."

Although the Social Security Act is a remedial statute and as such should
be liberally construed to allow benefit payments, there are outer limits
of liberality of interpretation in favor of the claimant. Therefore,
unless other formalities or solemnization surround a purported marriage,
the mere act of acquiring a marriage license may not be considered a
"marriage ceremony" within the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act
even though the parties in good faith believe that acquiring such license
is all that is necessary to create a valid marriage. To hold otherwise
would interpret the requirement of a ceremonial marriage out of the
statute.

Accordingly, it is held that in the absence of a "marriage
ceremony," no valid marriage relationship arose and W does not qualify as
R's widow under section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act.

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.